Yes Simon, Stellar
Precession (the entire set of all the stars together, appearing to move Eastwards annually, currently by about 50.3 arcseconds annually, as one complete set) is agreed upon by all.
And yes Simon, the Tychos model explains Stellar
Precession as quite simply being caused by Earth's 1mph 25,344year orbit under PVP (Polaris-Vega-Polaris). Agreed upon by all who understand the Tychos model.
And yes Simon, the fact that you covered, explained and illustrated in your Tychos book the REASON why Stellar
Precession's annual arcseconds amount keeps INCREASING every year is yet another fine point of evidence proving the Tychos model superior to the Copernican model, since the Copernican model has no explanation for the "mysterious for Copernicans" annual increase in Stellar
Precession.
The entire set of all the stars together appearing to move Eastwards 50.3 arcseconds annually as one complete set (aka Stellar Precession) is a given, a fact which needn't even enter our conversation since it is factored out when discussing Stellar Parallax.
WITHIN the (Easternly moving, yes, yes) complete set, the official story is that SOME stars are closer to us than others and thus these "CLOSEST stars appear to show parallax RELATIVE to the FAR stars" which means these CLOSEST stars APPEAR to "move" RELATIVE to the FAR stars.
My entire post is pointing out a problem with the official Stellar
Parallax story, which I discovered while creating this for you:
See, while you were talking about 6-month parallax data (since the elite's parallax data is usually talking about 6-month parallax data) I happened by chance to choose to illustrate what perfect 1-year parallax looks like in the Tychos model.
In the Tychos model,
during Summer Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Summer Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
since the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year:
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo would have the closest star showing "positive parallax"
meaning the close star would "appear to move 0.62 arcseconds (to the west side of the photo)
relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 3rd photo would show 1.24 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 11th photo would show 6.2 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
(unfortunately this relative difference is too microscopic for your telescope+camera, so this is just theoretical)
In the Tychos model,
during Winter Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Winter Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
since the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year:
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo would have the closest star showing "negative parallax"
meaning the close star would "appear to move 0.62 arcseconds (to the east side of the photo)
relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 3rd photo would show 1.24 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 11th photo would show 6.2 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
(unfortunately this relative difference is too microscopic for your telescope+camera, so this is just theoretical)
In the Tychos model,
during Autumn Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Autumn Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
although the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year,
since the center of Autumn Quadrant is exactly the direction in which the Earth moves,
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo (and even the 11th photo) would have the close star showing "zero parallax".
In the Tychos model,
during Spring Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Spring Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
although the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year,
since the center of Spring Quadrant is exactly opposite the direction in which the Earth moves,
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo (and even the 11th photo) would have the close star showing "zero parallax".
The point is, my illustration and explanation matches the Tychos model about parallax, meaning specifically that:
the Summer Positive Parallax would have close stars appear to move, to the west side of photos, relative to far stars,
the Winter Negative Parallax would have close stars appear to move, to the east side of photos, relative to far stars,
and this Parallax be ever-building, ever-growing, as Earth moves 14,036km per year (140,360 per decade) in one direction.
(In the Tychos model, that "one direction" needs clarification of course, it seems like a "one direction" straight line for say a decade or even a hundred years, but of course it's not an actual straight line since zoomed out that seemingly straight path is actually a giant 25,344 year circular path. The fact remains, in the Tychos model, Earth does NOT come back to the same location every year. In the Tychos model, Earth only comes back to the same location once every 25,344 years.)
The point is, here's the problem with the official stellar parallax data story: according to the special people like the supposedly trustable authorities at Greenwich Observatory, they claim Stellar Parallax (a close star appearing to move, for example, 0.31 arcseconds (to the west side of the photo)
relative to the far stars) PEAKS at 6 months and then over the subsequent 6 months RETURNS back to its original position in the set.
The "returns exactly back to its original position in the set each year" is their main piece of "evidence" for their false claim that "Earth returns exactly back to its original perspective position in the solar system each year."
The Tychos model says Parallax would be ever-building, ever-growing, since it would have to be, since Earth moves 14,036km per year (140,360 per decade) in one direction, away from it's former location, and doesn't return to that original location until 25,344 years later.
The Copernican model says Parallax peaks at say 0.31 arcseconds over 6 months (0.001640402866 millimeter on their 6-foot-lens) then moves back to zero again by the end of the year, basically each close star performs an extremely small circle dance over the course of a year and they say that proves the earth does a circle dance over the course of a year.
The official Stellar Parallax model says: annual circle.
The close star does an annual circle dance relative to the far stars,
the relative difference between 6-month photos peaks at 0.31 arcseconds,
and then the close star returns to it's normal location in the set, just like Earth.
The Tychos Stellar Parallax model says: no annual circle. No annual circle at all. Straight line.
Each Summer the close star would appear to keep moving further, to the west of the photo, relative to the far stars,
each Winter the close star would appear to keep moving further, to the east of the photo, relative to the far stars,
0.62 arcseconds of relative difference between annual photos, 6.2 arcseconds of relative difference between decade photos,
the close star would not return to it's normal location in the set until 25,344 years later, just like Earth.
So when faced with this discovery (which nobody else noticed, since everybody was thinking only in terms of 6 month parallax) this discovery that the YEAR/DECADE Copernican Parallax "data" doesn't match the YEAR/DECADE Tychos Parallax Model, I was faced with a choice.
My first thought, as I explained to my kids, was that if I tell Simon he will be heartbroken, he will hate me forever, and my fantasy about saving up enough money to someday visit Simon in Rome will be totally crushed.
But then I realized, as I explained in great detail in my post above (
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1989&p=2405996&sid=8a79cfdbcfba51e2f7b395c85d4e6476#p2405996) that the YEAR/DECADE Tychos Parallax Model doesn't match the YEAR/DECADE Copernican Parallax "data" because (drum-roll, but no big surprise really) the Copernican Parallax "data" is false, incorrect, forged, faked, constructed entirely to DISPROVE any non-copernican model.
Simon, I'm surprised and a little hurt that my post above resulted in you replying "you must be mistaken, you must be talking about Stellar Precesion". I think if you re-read my post above, and this post right here, you will see there is an absolute conflict between the YEAR/DECADE Tychos Parallax Model and the YEAR/DECADE Copernican Parallax "data" and I am choosing to confidently state that the Tychos Model is correct and the Copernican "data" about Parallax is a huge lie.
The Copernican model says Parallax peaks at say 0.31 arcseconds over 6 months (0.001640402866 millimeter on their 6-foot-lens) then moves back to zero again by the end of the year.
If it moves back to zero at the end of each year, then Earth moves back to the same location at the end of each year.
Since Earth in reality does NOT move back to the same location at the end of each year, since Earth in reality keeps moving 14,036km per year (140,360 per decade) in one direction, the "annual circle parallax data" logically must be wrong.
And since this data involves 0.001640402866 millimeter difference on their 6-foot-lens, I am absolutely sure, just like PianoRacer, just like AA MORRIS, and just like Tycho Brahe himself, "Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers; they are due to instrumental and personal errors (...or total lies by the Royal Academy Clowns)."
https://ia902705.us.archive.org/12/item ... ckrich.pdfhttp://www.aamorris.net/properganderatp ... ration-liehttp://archive.is/15jL4How about this, please right click my illustration, it's a full-size original png, and please draw in the summer Tychos parallax prediction (close star appears to move west, relative to far stars) and the winter Tychos parallax prediction (close star appears to move east, relative to far stars) You and I are saying the same thing, and that parallax difference between the close stars and the far stars would continue to grow each year.
Now look at the official Copernican "annual circle" illustrations again:
The conflict is not due to Tychos being wrong, not at all. Tychos is right.
The conflict is due to the whole subject of "Parallax" being a trap with official forged "data".
Please don't get mad at me Simon. I respect you so much. I want to visit you someday. Please realize that Parallax is NOT the friend you thought it was.
Sun movement proves Tychos correct!
Mars, Venus, Mercury movement proves Tychos correct!
Parallax is an "annual circle, so Earth moves in an annual circle" trap!
I will now silently hope you actually re-read my post above and this post with an open heart.
Perhaps take a week to figure out where my illustration is mistaken. I think the official "annual circle parallax data" is the only thing mistaken here.
Sincerely,
Your friend in Japan,
Steve the Levi
PS - Just like whoever told you "Simon, my brother, stop assuming the 'live helicopter with a camera' got accidentally blown by wind right before the nose-out moment, because the fact is: there WAS no helicopter, it was ALL CGI!" was correct,
(and just as such a friend was looking out for your best interests and trying to keep your evidence points all correct, not at all trying to "attack" your 99% correct evidence points),
so too, my intent is pure: I know your model is correct, I simply am realizing (before anyone else, it seems) that the "annual circle parallax data" doesn't match your model - meaning parallax data is wrong while the Tychos model is right!
Plus even before I made this little discovery of conflict, many smart folks including Brahe himself have said that nobody can measure such tiny (e.g. 0.31 arcseconds) amounts of difference between two dots of light, and since nobody can actually make precise measurements THAT IS EXACTLY WHY the Royal Clowns created the Greenwich Hoaxervatory and enlisted many "official bad guy" astronomers (and even "alternative good guy" astronomers as well) and thus created this debate in our heads about whether the close stars move west relative to the far stars for 6 months, or whether the close stars move east relative to the far stars for 6 months, but it's a false dichotomy because ALL of those parallax-measuring-gods all agree (although they don't say it loud enough to be noticed by most) "After the 6 month peak, the difference goes back to zero, since Earth goes back to location zero, since Earth orbits the sun of course." ALL of the parallax-measuring-gods have always been (since 1838) claiming "annual circle Parallax" thus "annual circle Earth orbiting the sun." And they have been getting away with this huge Emperor's-Clothes lie since absolutely no real honest humans can ever possibly observe such microscopic differences to prove the official "data" wrong.
I'm hoping you will realize: although I'm not as smart as you Simon (I'm so dumb I believed in Concave Earth and couldn't even stop mixing up the terms Concave and Convex), although you are absolutely a million times smarter than me Simon, as it happens, about this one little point, my illustration (which I originally made to PROVE your Parallax evidence TRUE) discovered a conflict.
Please realize, the correct feeling in this situation is, "Wow Steve, thanks, I was thinking about the 6 month parallax data, since they always talk about 6 month parallax data, I never really drew what the Tychos year to year to year photos would look like! Your illustration is correct, the Tychos year to year to year photos would definitely NOT show the close stars returning to the exact some location relative to the far stars. The Tychos year to year to year photos would definitely show the continuously building differences between the close stars and the far stars, most especially in the center of Summer&Winter quadrants. But all the official (and official alternative) "data" shows "annual circle Parallax", which means all their Parallax data, if authentic, would be proving "annual circle Earth orbiting the sun." And thanks for understanding that even though Stellar Parallax was a trap, Stellar Precession IS real, and my Tychos book covers, explains and illustrates the REASON why Stellar
Precession's annual arcseconds amount keeps INCREASING every year - this is a GOOD point of evidence proving the Tychos model superior to the Copernican model, since the Copernican model has no explanation for the "mysterious for Copernicans" annual increase in Stellar
Precession. Precession is real. Parallax is fake. Thanks for pulling me out of the Parallax trap, my brother Steve. It took a lot of courage to risk our friendship by telling me a truth which at first glance seemed to be "attacking" one of my evidence areas. That particular "parallax evidence" area was indeed based on forged "annual circle" data. Thanks for helping me get back on track with the NON-conflicting, OBSERVABLE by all, Sun/Mars/Venus/Mercury REAL undeniable evidence areas. You are of course always welcome to come visit me, if you ever do indeed save up enough, we'll have a great time and laugh together about the Concave trap and the Parallax trap which we both respectively helped pull each other out of, with respect, gratitude, and love of reality above all."
